Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIraq's Shiite religious parties, most with ties to Iran, have reestablished a political bloc called the Iraqi National Alliance. Among its founders are Ahmad Chalabi, the revered darling of US neoconservatives such as Richard Perle and Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute; Muqtada al-Sadr, the brooding, mercurial mullah who has mysteriously retreated to Qom, Iran's religious capital, for quick-study lessons on how to become an ayatollah; and, of course, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, one of the founders of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which has changed its name but not its spots. SCIRI, the anchor of the new coalition, is now called the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), but it still acts as an arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which founded it in 1982, and its paramilitary Badr Brigade -- also a part of the new Iraqi alliance -- is a terrorist unit that operates pro-Iran death squads in Iraq.
Let's sort this out.
First of all, although Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has so far opted not to join the pan-Shiite religious alliance, American Pollyannas who see Maliki as a nationalist, pro-American ally are wrong. Like the new INA alliance, Maliki is in thrall to the Iranians, too, only slightly less so. His secretive, cult-like Dawa Party -- which has split and split again -- provides nearly all of his inner-circle allies and advisers, and according to Iraqi sources Maliki is heavily vested in ties to Iran and its intelligence services. He shrewdly, though unconvincingly, positioned himself and his new party, State of Law, as a pro-unity, nationalist party during the January provincial elections, but although Maliki tried to find allies among secular Iraqis, religious Sunnis, and Kurds, nearly all of his votes came from Arab Shiites. He got votes from Iraqis who were unhappy with their country's religious-right drift and who rejected ISCI and its allies, in part by lavishing patronage to newly created tribal councils in the Shiite-majority provinces. As a result, Maliki has been riding high of late, and a well-placed former Iraqi official told me that Maliki felt strong enough to tell the founders of the Iraqi National Alliance that he'd refuse to join unless they let him run the show, with a guarantee that he'd be reelected as prime minister if the Alliance wins a majority in the January, 2010, election. Maliki may or may not have overestimated his strength, but in any case he may decide to join the Alliance at a later date -- or, alternately, he might join them after the election in a coalition government. In either case, Iran will be the big winner, especially as US forces move out.
A remarkable piece by David Ignatius in the Washington Post describes how, behind the scenes, Iran is using its intelligence service and its ties to Maliki to increase its influence:
"Iran's links with Maliki are so close, said this Iraqi intelligence source, that the prime minister uses an Iranian jet with an Iranian crew for his official travel. The Iranians are said to have sent Maliki an offer to help his Dawa Party win at least 49 seats in January's parliamentary elections if Maliki will make changes in his government that Iran wants."
According to Ignatius, forensic evidence from last week's truck bombings in Baghdad reveals that Iran or its agents may have been behind the devastating attacks that blew a hole in downtown Baghdad last week:
"Forensic evidence points to a possible Iranian role, according to an Iraqi intelligence source, [who] said that signatures of the C-4 explosive residues that have been found at the bomb sites are similar to those of Iranian-made explosives that have been captured in Kut, Nasiriyah, Basra and other Iraqi cities since 2006."
Ignatius also reports that Gen. Mohammad Shalwani, the head of Iraq's intelligence service, quit last week, "because of what he viewed as Maliki's attempts to undermine his service and allow Iranian spies to operate freely." As a result, key members of the intelligence service are "fleeing for safety in Jordan, Egypt and Syria -- fearing that they will be targets of Iranian hit teams if they remain in Iraq." (Note: the Iraqi intelligence service, largely established by the US CIA after the invasion, built a professional cadre of spies and intelligence officers, but it was undermined by parallel intelligence services created by Maliki, with Iran's assistance.)
The new Iraqi National Alliance is designed to replace the old United Iraqi Alliance, the bloc of Shiite religious parties that emerged as the dominant vote-getter in the 2005 parliamentary elections. (The UIA was assembled with the blessing of crusty old Ayatollah Ali Sistani of Najaf, the bearded mullah who decided that Iraq's religious Shiites ought to run together. So far, Sistani has shown the good sense to stay out of politics this time around, but my guess is that he's quite busy behind the scenes trying to mend fences between Maliki and the new alliance.)
Not surprisingly, the new alliance has committed itself to upholding the primacy of the Shiite religious leaders of Najaf and it has included in its platform various conservative, moralistic planks that would warm the hearts of the American Christian right and other preachers like Bill Bennett. And, of course, it has declared that it will "not establish relations with the Zionist entity." (That would be Israel.)
Notably, the two most powerful leaders of the Alliance are in Iran: Sadr, who's in Qom, and Hakim, stricken with cancer and being treated in a Tehran hospital. It's important to note that top Iranian officials, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Leader, have been pushing hard (and openly) to reconstitute the Shiite religious alliance in Iraq for the 2010 elections. Hakim's condition has lately taken a turn for the worse, but his family is still the most powerful force inside ISCI and, now, the Alliance, and his son Ammar al-Hakim may emerge as ISCI's official new leader. If Ignatius is right, and the Iranian agents or their allies were responsible for the truck bombs that devastated the Iraqi foreign ministry and the finance ministry last week, then perhaps that was a not-so-subtle warning to Maliki. In any case, the bombings have weakened Maliki at a critical moment, shredding his image as a law-n-order prime minister and making him look ridiculous for having asserted too quickly that Iraq is in good hands.
In light of the role of Chalabi in the Alliance, let's pay attention closely to the reaction of his former Washington allies, such as Perle, Pletka, Douglas Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz. Among the most militant advocates of Israel, they can't be happy about Chalabi signing on to a bloc that opposes the "Zionist entity." Among the most vocal denouncers of Iran, they can't be happy about Chalabi's role in helping to assemble an overtly pro-Iran bloc in Iraqi politics. My guess is they'll be silent.
The electoral prospects of the new Alliance are questionable. Like the former UIA, the members of the INA are a disparate and quarrelsome bunch, and many of the lesser components will chafe under ISCI's likely bossy role. More nationalist formations like Sadr's bloc and Fadhila, a Sadrist offshoot strong in the south of Iraq, may resist ISCI's dominance. And all of them will have to overcome the fact that many Iraqis are sick and tired of Shiite religious claptrap (and of Iran). Perhaps that explains why Maliki is staying out of the Alliance so far: the prime minister can run once again as a born-again nationalist, with his tribal council support, while the Shiite religious bloc scoops up the easy-to-command votes of rural Shiites who think they're voting for Allah. Perhaps in order to downplay its role, and Iran's, ISCI has allowed Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a member of an anti-Maliki faction of Dawa who served as prime minister before Maliki, to lead the new Alliance. But Jaafari is hardly a political power, and -- unlike Sadr and ISCI's Badr -- he has no men with guns.
Needless to say, it's way, way too late for President Obama to do anything about this, though he ought to keep his promise to involve the international community in a last-ditch effort to rebalance Iraqi politics away from dominance by the Shiite religious parties. Still, as I've been writing for years, Iran has the upper hand in Iraq. As Ignatius reports:
"Should the Americans try to restore order? The top Iraqi intelligence source answered sadly that it was probably wiser to 'stay out of it and be safe.' When pressed about what his country would look like in five years, absent American help, he answered bluntly: 'Iraq will be a colony of Iran.'"
True, that.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
US imperial strategies blowback once again.
Next act, Afghanistan ...
Posted by sloper at 08/25/2009 @ 08:56am
a "remarkable piece" in the Washington Post is the blogger's main source...
a day after criticizing the Post's coverage.
it makes sense now. the blogger doesn't think the Post is bad...the blogger needs the Post to write stories so he can leech off them.
Posted by urmygyro at 08/25/2009 @ 09:41am
A patched-up country like Iraq, with is disparate pieces and without a strong dictator, will likely stay a sort of "colony" of one sort or another.
Dreyfuss maybe right to echo the Iraqi intelligence source cited by Ignatius that "Iraq will be a colony of Iran", time will tell. But we also know that these two countries have a long bitter history and what transpires in 5 years, as envisioned by Dreyfuss & co., isn't likely to be long-lasting.
For my money and American blood, Iraq might as well be a Western/American `colony'; far preferable to Iraq being a colony of Iran, China or Russia!
Posted by Happy at 08/25/2009 @ 09:41am
Question for Dreyfuss and all of the Iran supporters.
I thought Iran was a peace loving country with no designs on ruling the entire middle east?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 10:51am
Iraq is primarily an Arab state, and it has a pretty strong national identity. The Sunni Iraqs will resist Iranian dominance, and there will be a civil war if Iran tries dominates Iraq.
Posted by pjcasey at 08/25/2009 @ 10:56am
posted by ROBERT DREYFUSS on 08/25/2009 @ 08:45am
The first question in addressing Ignatius' piece is "Who is talking to Ignatius?"
The Washington Post has been coming under fire for a while now for being a wholly sold-out reliable mouthpiece for special interests. They run front-page editorials every day in the guise of "reporting" and do not practice journalistic "separation of church and state" with respect to editorial and objective reporting.
With the Obama administration trying to reduce the US military footprint in Iraq, there are probably a lot of parties at work trying to counter the withdrawal and keep the US mired in Iraq. Some of these parties (eg Israel) have high-level connections in US mass media and furthermore are not thinking in the best interests of the US, but still wish to the US to stay in Iraq potentially.
I long ago came to the conclusion that removing Saddam - the linchpin in the otherwise predestined-to-collapse British colonial project called "Iraq" - would only provide an effective annex to Iran. So it is not surprising that figures within Iraq who do not want that situation to come to pass might be sounding the alarm. Nonetheless, the Washington Post is not exactly a source of information known to be without agendas on virtually every issue of the day ...
Posted by syfriendly at 08/25/2009 @ 11:00am
"I thought Iran was a peace loving country with no designs on ruling the entire middle east?"----Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 10:51am
I thought Iraq was a secure, stable, and free democracy whose example would be an inspiration to the entire middle east?
Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 11:29am
Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 10:51am
When you think about Iraq being a "colony" of Iran, it would be helpful to think about it as analogous to the US's relationship with Mexico and Canada.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 11:30am
Hmmmm...
So George W. Bush broke it and the Iranians are buying it. Liberals warned about that before we even went into Iraq. Hell, so did Colin Powell.
Good job, George! You even failed at being a "War President." Mission Accomplished indeed!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/25/2009 @ 11:53am
"Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that five major Shiite fundamentalist parties along with some other personalities and small parties have announced the National Iraqi Alliance, the successor to the United Iraqi Alliance that had grouped the same parties plus the Islamic Mission (Da'wa) Party of current prime minister Nuri al-Maliki.
This move could keep Nuri al-Maliki from winning another term-- and could therefore affect the relations of the Iraqi government with American military commanders. "
http://www.juancole.com/2009/08/shiite-fundamentalist-coalition.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 11:54am
"Virtually all the individuals we interviewed, whether sheikhs, internally displaced Iraqis, or average Iraqis, told us that tribes tended to be mixed religiously. Even if a tribe in Mada'in where we were conducting interviews was completely Sunni, it typically had a branch elsewhere in Iraq that was Shiite. Likewise, the Shiite tribes had Sunni branches. Moreover, all the sheikhs indicated that their tribe's people intermarry with members of other local tribes regardless of sectarian orientation. WHEN ASKED, ABOUT 2/3RDS OF TRIBAL LEADERS INSISTED THAT "SECTARIAN" CONFLICT WAS REALLY ABOUT RESOURCES. "
http://www.juancole.com/2009/08/religion-and- politics-in-iraq-what-type.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 11:57am
A patched-up country like Iraq, with is disparate pieces and without a strong dictator, will likely stay a sort of "colony" of one sort or another.
Posted by Happy at 08/25/2009 @ 09:41am
that didn't happen with the u.s..
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 12:02pm
For my money and American blood, Iraq might as well be a Western/American `colony'; far preferable to Iraq being a colony of Iran, China or Russia!
Posted by Happy at 08/25/2009 @ 09:41am
your blood is intact.
and the money is chinese.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 12:02pm
When you think about Iraq being a "colony" of Iran, it would be helpful to think about it as analogous to the US's relationship with Mexico and Canada.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 11:30am
iran is dependent on iraqi oil?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 12:06pm
When you think about Iraq being a "colony" of Iran, it would be helpful to think about it as analogous to the US's relationship with Mexico and Canada.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 11:30am
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 12:16pm
well,
the u.s. sure has messed up mexico.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 12:22pm
I don't know who could possibly be surprised by this. Once we left Vietnam, the north and the south apparently had quite a few ties our propaganda machine (media) had been downplaying for years. And also like Vietnam, when you install a puppet government, the puppet doesn't always do what you want when you leave him to his own devices.
Posted by DejaVu at 08/25/2009 @ 1:05pm
well,
the u.s. sure has messed up mexico.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 12:22pm
Mexico messed up Mexico.
The question is, who messed up Canada?
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 1:06pm
I'm glad to see Ignatius back. I don't often agree with him, but he's one of the few actual reporters the Post has left. I thought he had been a casualty of the mob now in charge..... Glad I was wrong.
Posted by DejaVu at 08/25/2009 @ 1:10pm
The question is, who messed up Canada?
Posted by YourJomamma at 08/25/2009 @ 1:06pm
Lots of Canadians wading across the St. Lawrence, Maasch?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 1:19pm
This is one of the final chapters in the British Empire map of the world. The lines drawn on a map in London creating Iran, Iraq, Saudi and Kuwait had nothing to do with the affiliations of the area they divided. This was then and now all about the oil. Without the western military or the puppets they inserted like the Shaw and Sadam the people of the region will gravitate to the pre-British alignment. Shiite and Sunni will align themselves and we will all watch as the lines on the map will be redrawn by blood in the sand. The worst thing BushCo could have done was drag down the only non-religious leader in the area. So much for the British-American oil control in the ME. How do you say OPEC in Chineese?
Posted by jflagg at 08/25/2009 @ 2:11pm
Would that have been George Bernard Shaw?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/25/2009 @ 2:21pm
"Mexico messed up Mexico. "
With help of America.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 2:36pm
Split Iraq up. Shittes, Sunnis, etc. Better yet, split up Bagdad like the old Western Berlin.
Posted by sofakingdabest at 08/25/2009 @ 2:58pm
"long ago came to the conclusion that removing Saddam - the linchpin in the otherwise predestined-to-collapse British colonial project called "Iraq" -"
I agree that Iraq was destined to collapse without Saddam. Saddam was NOT GOING TO SURVIVE. The consequences of Iraq's implosion were inevitable. Saddam's divide-and-rule policies would only have increased sectarian tension if they were prolonged. Even if Iraq didn't implode when Saddam died immediately (though it probably would have), if Saddam's sons succeeded him, they would only have ensured that such an implosion would be even worse when they died after decades of running Iraq into the ground.
"Split Iraq up. Shittes, Sunnis, etc."
Bad idea. That would ensure that there forever would be no chance of reconciliation. As it is, Bush adopted a despicable strategy of segregating Sunni and Shiite communities by building giant walls to seperate them.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 3:23pm
"Iraq is primarily an Arab state, and it has a pretty strong national identity. The Sunni Iraqs will resist Iranian dominance, and there will be a civil war if Iran tries dominates Iraq."
Duh. Everyone knows that. Liberals are just trying to invent justifications for their stupid opposition to our humanitarian intervention in Iraq. Iraq will never be an Iranian colony. That the Iranians feel they have to resort to terrorism to influence it makes this very clear. Iraqis rejected all of the religious parties in the elections. Iran's lack of political influence is precisely why it resorts to terrorism. But it is obvious that terror only unites Iraqis behind common enemies, as it united them against the bin Ladenist "insurgency".
Iraq will be a stable, prosperous country in a decade.
Afghanistan is already an Iranian colony. It was part of Persia. The people are Persian. Iran considered invading it in the 90s. Its government really is a puppet of Iran that constantly condemns the US. Afghanistan has as its official name today "The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan". It is named after Iran!
wiki:
"Relations between Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran are very strong. The two nations share the same language and culture, and both countries are part of Greater Persia. Shiites and Sunnis get along well in Afghanistan which causes no religious tensions between the two nations. Iran is a consistent donor towards Afghan reconstruction.
Afghanistan has excellent relations with the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. Afghanistan has no relations with Israel and alongside ally Iran, is a frequent non-Arab critic of Israel."
That's why Afghanistan's repressive laws are similiar to Iran's!
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 3:39pm
"Mexico messed up Mexico. "
With help of America.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 2:36pm
Do suggest that it is the US that created over a 100 years of corrupt Mexican govts?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 3:43pm
Do suggest that it is the US that created over a 100 years of corrupt Mexican govts?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 3:43pm
I suggest that our corporations often exploited that corruption, which made it worse in order to use cheap labor. I never said we created the problem. I said we helped it along.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 3:53pm
Also Americas stance on drugs and particularly it's "War on Drugs" has increased the amount of drug activity and cartels present in Mexico which also exacerbates the corruption.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 3:57pm
"Mexico messed up Mexico. "
With help of America.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 2:36pm
I've heard there's a saying in Mexico: "It isn't that America stole half our country, it's that they took the half with all the paved roads."
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/25/2009 @ 4:08pm
I've heard there's a saying in Mexico: "It isn't that America stole half our country, it's that they took the half with all the paved roads."
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/25/2009 @ 4:08pm
I don't know if I would go that far but someone who pays attention to history has to at least acknowledge that American industry and indeed government has contributed to the current state of Mexico. To not acknowledge it is to show that you believe America to be infallible when dealing with other countries.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/25/2009 @ 4:38pm
there will be a civil war if Iran tries dominates Iraq. Posted by pjcasey at 08/25/2009 @ 10:56am | ignore this person | warn this person
that Iraqi civil war has been going on for decades.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/25/2009 @ 5:13pm
split up Bagdad like the old Western Berlin. Posted by sofakingdabest at 08/25/2009 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
how's that been working out lately?
Posted by emile duBois at 08/25/2009 @ 5:16pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 3:43pm
I don't know aunti, Mexico seemed to do pretty well from the 1930s-1970s (the Mexican Miracle) that suddenly changed when they started asking the CIA for help with handling protests (Tlatelolco Massacre) and when they borrowed millions of dollars from the US Federal Reserve in the 1970s.
I'm sure that kind of "help" only comes with exploitation later on down the line.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 5:39pm
I wonder if the Iraqi Baathists stand a chance of re-establishing themselves as an anti-Iranian political force, and whether Syria sees a need to react to Iran's influence in Iraq (what's left of it). An Egyptian once explained his point of view to me that the Baath party was a kind of Mafia and that the Syrian Baathists made their Iraqi counterparts seem like very tolerant and forgiving folks by comparison...
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 08/25/2009 @ 6:31pm
"the Baath party was a kind of Mafia and that the Syrian Baathists made their Iraqi counterparts seem like very tolerant and forgiving folks by comparison"
Very true. Baathist rule in Iraq was Stalinist and totalitarian like North Korea.
"All over Iraq, legions of government informants are ever on alert for suspicious activities or conversations. Bugging is widespread. The regime rewards citizens who report anyone that has uttered even a single word critical of Saddam; children are publicly rewarded for reporting the "impure sentiments" of their own parents. Because no one knows for certain who might betray them to the government, no public or private conversation is truly safe. As veteran BBC correspondent John Sweeney says, "I have been to Baghdad a number of times. Being in Iraq is like creeping around inside someone else's migraine. The fear is so omnipresent you could almost eat it. No one talks."
Once prisoners are incarcerated for disloyalty to the regime, their suffering is so great it can scarcely be described. Many are placed in solitary confinement on starvation diets. Confessions are forced from them by the most gruesome methods imaginable: They are struck with brass knuckles and wooden bludgeons; they receive electric shocks to their genitalia; scorching metal rods are forced into their body orifices; their toes are crushed and their toenails pulled out; they have their limbs literally burned off; they are slowly lowered into large vats of acid until they confess or die. Many are poisoned with thallium, which causes its victims enormous agony before they die. When these prisons periodically get overcrowded, they are "cleaned out" by means of summary executions.
Frequently, confessions are extracted by torturing not only the prisoner, but..."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 7:10pm
"...his family members as well. His wife and daughters are raped, and sometimes beheaded, as he watches. His children or grandchildren – in many cases mere toddlers – are burned with cigarette butts; their eyes are gouged out; all the bones in their feet are crushed; their ears and limbs are amputated, one at a time. If no confession is forthcoming, the youngsters are slaughtered. Moreover, some of these prisons actually house the children of suspected dissidents – children younger than twelve who are packed into cells and left to rot amid pools of their own excrement, blood, and tears.
In addition to the aforementioned prisoners, hundreds of thousands of others have been taken into temporary custody, where they were tortured and then released – rendered physically and emotionally mangled for the rest of their lives. Indeed torture is not a last resort in Saddam's regime, but is often a first resort – to drive home the message that no dissent will be tolerated. Max Van der Stoel, former UN special reporter for human rights in Iraq, states plainly that the brutality of Saddam's regime is "of an exceptionally grave character – so grave that it has few parallels in the years that have passed since the Second World War.""
www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/817738/posts
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 7:13pm
Posted by Mask at 08/25/2009 @ 11:29am | ignore this person | warn this person
Touché.
Posted by Malcontent at 08/25/2009 @ 7:19pm
Robert D. Kaplan wrote in 2006:
"To know a totalitarian regime abstractly is different from knowing it intimately. Iraq in the 1980s was so terrifying that going to Damascus from Baghdad was like coming up for liberal humanist air. People talked furtively in Syria; in Iraq, nobody breathed a syllable of opposition. The whole country was like an illuminated prison yard. I was emotionally affected. Recent events make it easy to forget just how bad Iraq was back then.
My most recent searing, first-hand impression of Iraq, from last December, is this one: one town and village after another getting back on its feet, with residents telling American troops not to leave."
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/17/opinion/oe-kaplan17
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 7:23pm
I wonder if the Iraqi Baathists stand a chance of re-establishing themselves as an anti-Iranian political force,
I suspect we haven't seen the last of the Baathists yet. they are in the minority, yet ruled Iraq for decades. the Iraq civil war will again heat up, with great violence.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/25/2009 @ 7:33pm
Now Iraq is free and doctors can speak at last: Doctors say Hussein, not UN sanctions, caused children's deaths "Doctors said they were forced to refrigerate dead babies in hospital morgues until authorities were ready to gather the little corpses for monthly parades in coffins on the roofs of taxis for the benefit of Iraqi state television and visiting journalists." "I am one of the doctors who was forced to tell something wrong [to visiting peace activists] - that these children died from the fault of the UN. ... I am afraid if I tell the true thing ... They will kill me. Me and my family and my uncle and my aunt - everyone."
http://markhumphrys.com/iraq.html
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 7:35pm
"How the Left Betrayed My Country - Iraq By: Naseer Flayih Hasan Monday, January 03, 2005
An Iraqi poet's disillusioning experience with anti-American "peace activists".
Before the last war, we Iraqis spent decades cut off from the outside world. Not only did the Baathist regime prevent us from traveling during the Iran-Iraq conflict and the period of the sanctions, but they punished anyone possessing satellite television. And of course, internet access was strictly limited. Because of our isolation, most of us had little idea or sense about life beyond our borders.
We did believe, however, that democracy and human rights were important factors in Western civilization. So it came as a shock to us when millions of people began demonstrating across the world against America's build-up to the invasion of our country. We supposed the protests were by people who had no idea about the terrible atrocities that the regime had inflicted upon us for decades. We assumed that once they learned what had happened in Iraq, they would change their minds, or modify their opposition to the war.
My first clue that this would not happen was a few weeks after Baghdad fell. I had befriended a French reporter who had begun to realize that the situation in Iraq was not how the international media or the so-called "peace camp" described it. I noticed, however, that whenever he tried to voice his doubts to colleagues, they argued that he was wrong. Soon afterwards, I met a Dutch woman on Mutinabi Street, where booksellers lay out their wares on Friday morning. I asked her how long she'd been in Iraq and, through a translator, she answered, "Three months."
"So you were here during the war?"
"Yes!" she said. "To see the crimes of the Americans!""
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 7:38pm
"I was stunned. After a moment, I replied, "What about the crimes of the regime? It killed millions of Iraqis. Do you know that if the regime was still in power, the conversation we're having now would result in our torture or death?"
Her face turned red and she angrily responded, "Soon will come the day that the Americans will do worse." She then went on to accuse me of not knowing what the true facts were in Iraq--and that she could see the situation better than me!
It's worth noting, as well, that the general attitude of peace activists I met was tension and anger. They were impossible to reason with. This was because, on one hand, the sometimes considerable risks they took to oppose the war made them unable to accept the fact that their cause was not as noble as they believed. Then, too, their dogmatic anti-American attitudes naturally drew them to guides, translators, drivers and Iraqi acquaintances who were themselves supporters of the regime. These Iraqis, in turn, affected the peace activists until they came to share almost the same judgments and opinions as the terrorists and defenders of Saddam.
This was very disappointing for someone like me, who thought for decades that the Left was generally the progressive power in the world."
www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16513
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 7:41pm
nucnews.net/nucnews/2004nn/0409nn/040923nn.htm
The following is a transcript of remarks delivered by Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to a joint session of Congress.
"I stand here today as the prime minister of a country emerging finally from dark ages of violence, aggression, corruption and greed. Like almost every Iraqi, I have many friends who were murdered, tortured or raped by the regime of Saddam Hussein. Well over a million Iraqis were murdered or are missing. We estimate at least 300,000 in mass graves, which stands as monuments to the inhumanity of Saddam's regime. ... My friends, today we are better off, you are better off and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. Your decision to go to war in Iraq was not an easy one but it was the right one." "There are no words that can express the debt of gratitude that future generations of Iraqis will owe to Americans. It would have been easy to have turned your back on our plight, but this is not the tradition of this great country. Not for the first time in history you stood up with your allies for freedom and democracy."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 7:50pm
The best possible reply to the Igantious editorial and its mirroring here was given on the following blog http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
Our adventurism takes us all the way to Iraq, we tumble the most secular government we could ever want to have in Iraq and a great bulwark against Iranian incursion in the Persian Gulf and Iraq itself, if that is what we are now tearfully wishing for. Sometimes you get what you work hard for, and we have what we should have expected in Iraq, so lets not pretend we did not know what was coming and are now waking up to the nightmare of a bully stealing our friend. Please read the reply given by Pat Lang on his blog. The piece is titled:
Ignatius on the Obvious in Iraq http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
Posted by Petrous at 08/25/2009 @ 8:21pm
"we tumble the most secular government we could ever want to have in Iraq"
Saddam praised the 9/11 attacks (no other government in the region joined him in openly celebrating them). The Duelfer Report concluded that Saddam had blueprints and plans in place to build a nuclear arsenal once the sanctions (which he manipulated to kill hundreds of thousands of people) were lifted. Saddam would have gotten WMD from North Korea if not for the invasion. Saddam threatened to wipe Israel off the map and funded suicide bombers in that country. He harbored one of the terrorists involved in the 1993 WTC attack. As a result of the invasion, Libya gave up its WMD and we've shut down a black market for WMD in Pakistan. Saddam would have gotten an atom bomb if not for the Persian Gulf War destroying his ability to produce one. In 1990, he was seriously plotting to start WW3 by attacking Israel with the arsenal of chemical weapons he then possessed. In 1998, he planned at least one foiled terrorist attack against an American target in revenge for the Iraq Liberation Act. He funded Abu Nidal, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 8:50pm
Do suggest that it is the US that created over a 100 years of corrupt Mexican govts?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/25/2009 @ 3:43pm
well, the u.s. sure helped keep the pri in power for a long time.
and now we have the whore on drugs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 8:53pm
I've heard there's a saying in Mexico: "It isn't that America stole half our country, it's that they took the half with all the paved roads."
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 08/25/2009 @ 4:08pm
aren't you from north carolina?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 9:02pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 7:10pm
Maybe you should start your own blog, maybe call it Right Wing News for People Who Can't Think For Themselves. Or maybe Repeat a Lie Long Enough and It'll Become True.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 9:24pm
well, the u.s. sure helped keep the pri in power for a long time.
and now we have the whore on drugs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 8:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person
El Chapo, Mexican Drug Lord, Makes the Forbes Billionaire List....
Huffington Post - March 11, 2009
The Next Zapata or Villa?
Looks like US drug policy is undermining los conversatives...lol.....
Pancho was a bandit boss, His horse as fast as polished steel....
Posted by OneVote at 08/25/2009 @ 9:37pm
Mr. Dreyfuss - this is "news" to you?
Posted by OneVote at 08/25/2009 @ 9:39pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 7:10pm
Maybe you should start your own blog, maybe call it Right Wing News for People Who Can't Think For Themselves. Or maybe Repeat a Lie Long Enough and It'll Become True.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 9:24pm
how about "Saving The Brownies From Their Own Stupidity"?
(trust me, he's (it?) already made numerous references to "superiority")
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 9:44pm
"(trust me, he's (it?) already made numerous references to "superiority")"
No, I haven't. Only the moral superiority of the US.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 10:22pm
obviously iran has a plenty of influence in iraq but iraq being a colony of iran?i do not think that iran has the power or the potential to turn other country into colonial enclave of it,s own.the iranians are very worried about their own arab population of khuzistan(ahwaz)that number almost 5 million and i do not believe they have any desire to connect both iraqi and arab ahwazis with each other.
Posted by excalibur999 at 08/25/2009 @ 10:49pm
hahahahahahaha!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 10:52pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/25/2009 @ 9:44pm
Hilarious. I'll wait for his post explaining: (1) how non-Caucasian people have no souls, (2) how moral superiority is a function of skull shape, (3) or something even more absurd - maybe how John McCain's offspring will be the Second Salvation (except for that dark adopted daughter who isn't Bangladeshi but an illegitimate child of a black woman - it's true! I heard it on faux!)
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 10:22pm
A country you just happen to live in? I'm shocked!
Now, if you were arguing the moral superiority of the Ayatollah, Germans or the Japanese emperor, then we'd have an interesting discussion. The fact that U.S. moral superiority doesn't look to you as absurd as the above examples, should suggest something to you.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 11:00pm
I agree that Iraq was destined to collapse without Saddam. Saddam was NOT GOING TO SURVIVE.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 3:23pm
This is a right wing invention. There is no evidence that Saddam's rule was falling apart.
There were no sectarian tensions until we invaded.
"As it is, Bush adopted a despicable strategy of segregating Sunni and Shiite communities by building giant walls to seperate them"
Divide and rule is the only option available to an occupier. The last thing the US wanted was to see a united Shiite/Sunni alliance.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 12:03am
We should have withdrawn our troops after we captured Bhagdad and let the Sunnis and the Shias battle it out for dominance. This has been a war in the making since the 7th century.
Posted by msf31538 at 08/26/2009 @ 12:08am
Liberals are just trying to invent justifications for their stupid opposition to our humanitarian intervention in Iraq.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 3:39pm
For a start, there was nothing humanitarian about the intervention, given that more people have been killed as a result of the invasion than Saddam killed in 24 years of rule.
Of course, what the right wingers refuser to accept and don;t want to hear is that the Iraqi government was always supported by Iran and that Iran also supported the invasion.
In fact, the success of the surge owes much to the support that Tehran have given.
If Iraq becomes an Iranian colony, then it will be a gradual and uneventful shit. Iraq is overwhelmingly Shiite. The highest religious authority in Iraq is Ali Al Sistani, and Iranian.
There would never have been elections in Iraq had Sistani not mobilized 300,000 Shiites in a demonstrations demanding them to the streets.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 12:11am
Iraq will never be an Iranian colony. That the Iranians feel they have to resort to terrorism to influence it makes this very clear. Iraqis rejected all of the religious parties in the elections. Iran's lack of political influence is precisely why it resorts to terrorism.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 3:39pm
Rubbish of course. The terrorism in Iraq has been carries out by Sunni extremists, not Shiites. In fact, ins spite of the blame for the violence being heaped on Iran, there is not a shred of evidence that Iran is behind any of the allegations.
the right wingers forget that even Bush turned to the Iranian factions, like Hakim (who he welcomes to the White House).
Iran does not need to resort to terrorism. All the Iraqi political leaders are former Iraqis exiles who returned from Iran. Barbara Boxer once asked Condoleeza Rice why when Bush visited Ira, he had to do so under secrecy and sneak in unannounced under cover of night, where as Ahmadinejad was given a red carpet reception consistent with the welcome afforded heads of state.
The poor wingnuts can't stand to face the reality hat we've handed Iraq to Iran ion a silver platter without them having to even fire a single bullet.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 12:17am
No, I haven't. Only the moral superiority of the US.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 10:22pm
The Us has no moral superiority. You might believe it does, but then again, you belong to the tiny minority who believed Bush was a great president.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 12:19am
Saddam killed 2.5 million people through torture and murder and two wars of aggression and sanctions. The war has killed about 180,000 people at most. Almost all of them were killed by the Baathists themselves, who worked with jihadists throughout the whole of Iraq to conduct destabilizing operations at provocative religious shrines and in order to destroy infrastructure Americans sought to rebuild. The secret police of the old regime were quite handy at this, as they knew were everyone lived and how everything worked. 2006 was the only year of the war, according to morgues in Iraq, wherein the death toll exceeded the average death toll under Saddam. This death toll is not counting the sanctions. When you keep in mind that over 20,000 Iraqi babies have been saved by improved health care, and the end of sanctions, and the possibility of another genocide averted, and decades of rule by Saddam's even nuttier sons who would have ensured an even more bloody inevitable collapse when they died unless there was a Saddam 3 to succeed them successfully (the Baathists would have been able to cultivate the same sectarian violence and ultimately would have been able to provoke a mass genocidal civil war without an American intervention in the event of such an outcome), and when you keep in mind that Iraq will soon be a stable and prosperous country in which America will have built schools, hospitals, water purification facilities, ect., only the most deluded among us could deny Bush has saved Iraqi lives. Even Obama admits that Iraqis are far better off, he just takes a Gore Vidalian view on the issue.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 12:32am
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 8:50pm
"Saddam praised the 9/11 attacks"
Rubbish. There is no proof other than the unverified claims made by an alcoholoic. The only political leader that claimed the 911 attacks were a good thing, was Israel's current Prime Minister.
BTW. You yourself described the 911 attacks as a good thing in the same vane as the Pearl harbor attacks.
"The Duelfer Report concluded that Saddam had blueprints and plans in place to build a nuclear arsenal once the sanctions"
Rubbish. There were no blueprints found of a nuclear program.
"Saddam would have gotten WMD from North Korea if not for the invasion"
Rubbish. The Duelfer Report made the spurious claim that North Korea might have provided missile technology, not WMD.
"Saddam threatened to wipe Israel off the map and funded suicide bombers in that country."
Rubbish. Saddam never funded suicide bombers, becasue it is illogical to suggest that anyone would accept a bribe to kill themselves.
"He harbored one of the terrorists involved in the 1993 WTC attack"
Rubbish. There is no evidence that he harbored anyone involved in the 1993 WTC attack. The man was an Iraqi. It doesn't prove Saddam harbored him.
"As a result of the invasion, Libya gave up its WMD"
Rubbish. Lybia had been offering to give up their WMD since 1993. US governments had simply rejected the offer. Bush accepted it but even he stated that this had nothing to do with the invasion.
"and we've shut down a black market for WMD in Pakistan"
Rubbish. The nuclear black market is alive and well and as for AQ Kahn, the CIA knew about him since the 70's.
cont'd
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 12:35am
"Saddam would have gotten an atom bomb if not for the Persian Gulf War destroying his ability to produce one"
Rubbish. Saddam's nuclear program ended in 1991, but was already amabandoned by that stage.
"In 1990, he was seriously plotting to start WW3 by attacking Israel with the arsenal of chemical weapons he then possessed."
Rubbish. Saddam was a survivor and knew that attacking Israel would be suicidal. He never plotted to attack Israel.
"In 1998, he planned at least one foiled terrorist attack against an American target in revenge for the Iraq Liberation Act."
Rubbish. There was no foiled terrorist attack against an American target in revenge for the Iraq Liberation Act. Nor was there any plot to kill assassinate Bush's daddy.
"He funded Abu Nidal, Hezbollah, and Hamas"
Rubbish to both. He killd Nidal and never funded Hezbollah or Hamas.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 12:37am
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 12:32am
The highest estimates byt eh State department claim that Saddam killed 300,000 people.
This war has killed 1.2 million people, one third directly by the US.
The Baathisst never worked with Jihadists.
20,000 Iraqi babies could not have been saved by improved health care, becasue Iraq had the best health care in the Middle East before the Gulf War.
There was no sectarian violence in Iraq before the Iraq invasion.
Iraq was not falling apart and would have become a prosperous country once the sanctions were lifted or fell apart.
America only built the schools, hospitals, water purification facilities they originally destroyed.
Only a deluded wingnut could claim that Bush has saved Iraqi lives, when 1.2 million have been killed, 8 million in desperate need fo food and medical aid and 4 million displaced. The war has killed more people in 6 years that Saddam killed in 24.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 12:44am
"Rubbish. There is no proof other than the unverified claims made by an alcoholoic. "
I happen to know for a fact that there are Modern World History high school textbooks in this country that repeat the claim. By the way, Saddam's last pulp novel, Get Out Damned One, was an anti-semitic allegory praising 9/11 (about a mythic Arab hero who "invades the land of the enemy" and "topples one of his monumental towers").
"You yourself described the 911 attacks as a good thing in the same vane as the Pearl harbor attacks."
No, I would never be so depraved and callous! I did explain, though, that that is what the leader of Israel once implied.
"There is no evidence that he harbored anyone involved in the 1993 WTC attack."
Saddam just praised the attack and harbored the person who helped mix the chemicals for the bomb AFTER the attack had made Yasin an international fugitive. Iraq was the only country that protected him from the American authorities.
"Rubbish. Lybia had been offering to give up their WMD since 1993. US governments had simply rejected the offer. Bush accepted it but even he stated that this had nothing to do with the invasion."
Untrue and actually we have taped private conversations between Gaddafi and the leaders of Italy in which he admits he gave up the WMD out of fear he'd get what Saddam got.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 12:47am
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 12:47am
"By the way, Saddam's last pulp novel, Get Out Damned One, was an anti-semitic allegory praising 9/11 (about a mythic Arab hero who "invades the land of the enemy" and "topples one of his monumental towers")."
If you knew of such a book and such passages, you would be able to quote them, along with a link. BTW. Do you speak Arabic?
Saddam did not harbor the person who helped mix the chemicals for the bomb AFTER the attack had made. Yasin was an Iraqi who lived in Iraq.
There so called private conversations between Gaddafi and the leaders of Italy do not support your claim that he admits he gave up the WMD out of fear he'd get what Saddam got. His WMD was sparse at best and he had been trying to do a deal with th US since 1992.
"The Qaddafi regime has been trying to come in from the cold for more than a decade, as I detailed in a recent article, "Libya Is Not Iraq: Preemptive Strikes, WMD and Diplomacy," published in the summer 2004 issue of The Middle East Journal (www.mideasti.org). Informal Libyan overtures, which began as early as 1992, were rebuffed by the first Bush administration and later by the Clinton administration. At the time, Libya indicated that it was willing to discuss a renunciation of terrorism and the abandonment of WMD programs in return for talks aimed at ending sanctions and normalizing relations."
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/482
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 12:59am
"The highest estimates byt eh State department claim that Saddam killed 300,000 people. "
Shingo, this is the last time I'll debate this with you. The SD has attributed hundreds of thousands of deaths under the sanctions regime to Saddam. It has said Saddam killed over a million in the Iran-Iraq war. The number of bodies we've found buried in mass graves alone by Saddam is far higher than 300,000. The NYT, INDICT, and HRW clearly give you a figure of roughly 900,000 killed by Saddam over 24 years. Not counting genocides, this gives you 600,000-650,000 over 24 years. The Weekly Standard estimated Saddam killed over 25,000 people on an average year, not counting wars, genocides, or sanctions. You've mentioned this alleged "document" to me four or five times on different occassions. Every time you've mentioned it, I've asked you to give me a link. EVERY SINGLE TIME, you've ignored the question. The last time we debated this, you didn't even argue with me when I asserted that you were lying about this "document". Given that we've counted more individual bodies killed by Saddam then the number you state, I assume I was correct in my assertion. I will, however, repeat for the fifth or sixth time: WHERE IS THIS SO-CALLED DOCUMENT?!?
The Black Book of Saddam Hussein estimates 2 million killed, but I believe it excludes the sanctions.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 01:00am
"Do you speak Arabic?"
No, but it was translated and published in some countries. Hitchens mentioned it in one of his essays as a funny little aside. The press releases I've read about the novel have included these quotes and also argued that the book is highly anti-semitic in its portrayal of Jews (Christians, by contrast, are portrayed as APPEARING to be tolerant and kind, but under the surface are shown to be depraved and manipulative, their compassion a facade).
"There so called private conversations between Gaddafi and the leaders of Italy do not support your claim that he admits he gave up the WMD out of fear he'd get what Saddam got. His WMD was sparse at best"
Well, Gaddafi explicitly was quoted as saying that was the reason he gave them up. I won't argue with him on this matter. If his WMD was sparse is a different debate.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 01:09am
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 01:00am
The head of the SD, Madelaine Albright, claimed responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of deaths under the sanctions regime, stating that the cost had been worth it.
Perhaps the number of bodies we've found buried in mass graves migh have been highers than 300,000, but seeing as no forensic analysis was conducted, they cannot be attributed to Saddam, whcih is why he was only ever charged with teh deaths of 145 people.
Clearly, none of the NYT's, INDICT's, or HRW's claims were considered credible enough to introduce into a court of law.
The Weekly Standard is a right wing propaganda source run by neocons and extremists from the AEI, therefore it has no credibility.
We have not counted the bodies killed by Saddam. You have fabricated them. Your assertions are false as always.
The Black Book of Saddam Hussein obviously has no basis in fact, because none of it was deemed credible to enter into Saddam's trial. It certainly has not been peer reviewed.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 01:16am
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 01:09am
"The press releases I've read about the novel have included these quotes and also argued that the book is highly anti-semitic in its portrayal of Jews"
I have no doubt Saddam was anti-semitic, but without specific quotes that prove he praised the 911 attacks, you are just blowing hot air.
"Well, Gaddafi explicitly was quoted as saying that was the reason he gave them up. I won't argue with him on this matter. If his WMD was sparse is a different debate."
Gadaffi may well have been afraid of being attacked, but your argument does not prove that the invasion convinced him to give up his WMD. As I've demonstrated, he was trying to do that since 1992, which debunks your argument yet again.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 01:19am
"Rubbish. There was no foiled terrorist attack against an American target in revenge for the Iraq Liberation Act. Nor was there any plot to kill assassinate Bush's daddy."
Yes, FrontPage Mag has reported that during the Clinton years a terror attack on America planned by Saddam was foiled in 1998. I think I am being generous by assuming, as Clinton did, that the attack was revenge for the ILA passed that year. Otherwise, I would explain it by arguing Saddam was motivated by his support for jihad. I'm amazed that you denied Saddam tried to kill Bush 1. The liberals in the media have always downplayed Saddam's links to terror, but never argued that Saddam's secret police did not assassinate and attempt to assassinate people throughout the whole world (Iraq was more efficient at this than Iran is). I thought you liberals believed revenge for trying to off Bush 1 motivated Bush 2 into ousting Saddam.
FrontPageMag has also reported on Hezbollah and Hamas being funded by Saddam. You are an ardent supporter of Hamas, so why deny that Saddam was their ally?
"He never plotted to attack Israel."
Read Saddam's Secrets, by someone who was actually involved in Iraq's government.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 01:22am
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 01:16am
I will, however, repeat for the sixth or seventh time: WHERE IS THIS SO-CALLED DOCUMENT?!?
You made it up. That's why you just refused to link me to the document for the fifth time or sixth time. You pulled those numbers out of your ass. You are lying and know you are.
"The Black Book of Saddam Hussein obviously has no basis in fact, because none of it was deemed credible to enter into Saddam's trial. It certainly has not been peer reviewed."
Have you ever read the book? How about Republic of Fear?
The NYT clearly regards it as credible.
As far as the WS and right-wing extremists, you yourself are an extremist. Do you suppose that, since Saddam was not tried for the Iran-Iraq war, 1991 massacre, gassing of the Kurds, campaign against the marsh Arabs, or invasion of Kuwait at his barbaric sectarian show-trial, these events must therefore never have occured?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 01:32am
I see a position at Human Events magazine is still open Mr. Dreyfuss,
Posted by Anti-imperialist at 08/26/2009 @ 05:24am
This has been a war in the making since the 7th century. Posted by msf31538 at 08/26/2009 @ 12:08am | ignore this person | warn this person
this is nonsense and a dangerous misreading of history.
the civil war in Iraq dates from the final break up of the Ottoman empire. it is not a religious war, but rather a struggle for political control.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/26/2009 @ 07:50am
And when our dominant energy source is no longer oil, won't we be trading with the UCI like we do Vietnam?
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 07:57am
Anybody spot this?
"Frequently, confessions are extracted by torturing not only the prisoner, but..."----Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 7:10pm
"No, I haven't. Only the moral superiority of the US."----Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/25/2009 @ 10:22pm
Wanna bet we can get LFTO to defend waterboarding????
Posted by Mask at 08/26/2009 @ 08:14am
Maybe you should start your own blog, maybe call it Right Wing News for People Who Can't Think For Themselves. Or maybe Repeat a Lie Long Enough and It'll Become True.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/25/2009 @ 9:24pm
You seem lately to be descending into the myopia of some of the more vitriolic leftists here who ignore all facts.
I've yet to see anything that lfto has posted that isn't substantiated.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 09:56am
Substantiated propaganda...
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 12:02pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 09:56am
I've yet to see anything that lfto has posted that isn't substantiated.
1. "Even if Iraq didn't implode when Saddam died immediately (though it probably would have), if Saddam's sons succeeded him, they would only have ensured that such an implosion would be even worse when they died after decades of running Iraq into the ground." Counter-factual at 08/25/2009 @ 3:23pm
2. "[The Afghan] government really is a puppet of Iran that constantly condemns the US." at 08/25/2009 @ 3:39pm
3. A link that doesn't work to the "Free Republic" at 08/25/2009 @ 7:10/7:13pm that was actually an article in FrontPage Magazine written by John Perazzo.
4. Cites an op-ed by Robert D. Kaplan, who has been described as "...the global war on terror's best sideline reporter, but he's the wrong source to cite on how to run the entire franchise." at 08/25/2009 @ 7:23p
5. Cites Mark Humphreys , Islamic bigot, at 08/25/2009 @ 7:35pm
6. Another FrontPageMagazine cut and paste special from Naseer Flayih at 08/25/2009 @ 7:38pm. Again, it's editorial.
7. " Saddam would have gotten an atom bomb if not for the Persian Gulf War destroying his ability to produce one. In 1990, he was seriously plotting to start WW3 by attacking Israel with the arsenal of chemical weapons he then possessed." at 08/25/2009 @ 8:50pm
You'll notice I went sequentially through each post. It is clear he uses editorials from the right wing and makes many unsubstantiated claims.
The fact that you view this editorial as "substantiated" when you dismiss the same kind of content written by Chomsky, Zinn, Herman or whoever - which you'll note I rarely cite unless they have essentially presented my argument for me (typically with footnotes) - suggests the myopia isn't mine.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/26/2009 @ 1:10pm
Oh yeah, UCI = United Colonies of Iran
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/26/2009 @ 1:34pm
"1. "Even if Iraq didn't implode when Saddam died immediately (though it probably would have), if Saddam's sons succeeded him, they would only have ensured that such an implosion would be even worse when they died after decades of running Iraq into the ground." Counter-factual at 08/25/2009 @ 3:23pm "
That statement is self-evidently correct. I'd happily defend it, but you've yet to inform me as to what in particular you find objectionable about it. I suppose you simply object to rationally considering what Iraq's future WOULD HAVE BEEN without our intervention. I can well understand why you'd rather not think about it.
"2. "[The Afghan] government really is a puppet of Iran"
Again, that is factual. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has denounced Israel and Karzai openly criticised Bush repeatedly. It is named after the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose government exerts heavy influence over it.
"3. A link that doesn't work to the "Free Republic" at 08/25/2009 @ 7:10/7:13pm that was actually an article in FrontPage Magazine written by John Perazzo."
The link does work. The article is true regardless of if FrontPageMag published it. FrontPageMag is a great source of news.
"4. Cites an op-ed by Robert D. Kaplan, who has been described as "...the global war on terror's best sideline reporter, but he's the wrong source to cite on how to run the entire franchise." at 08/25/2009 @ 7:23p"
I don't care what you think of the author; the piece was factual. Kaplan didn't even say anything controversial, just that Saddam was a brutal totalitarian dictator who forced his people to live in constant fear. Do you find that factually dubious?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 3:36pm
"5. Cites Mark Humphreys , Islamic bigot, at 08/25/2009 @ 7:35pm "
You think anyone who offers any critique of Islam is a racist. Yet you call it insensitive to overthrow genocidal regimes that kill millions of Muslims.
"6. Another FrontPageMagazine cut and paste special from Naseer Flayih at 08/25/2009 @ 7:38pm. Again, it's editorial. "
You've yet to point out a single claim I've made that is doubtful. All you've done is argue repeatedly that I am "islamophobic".
"7. " Saddam would have gotten an atom bomb if not for the Persian Gulf War destroying his ability to produce one. In 1990, he was seriously plotting to start WW3 by attacking Israel with the arsenal of chemical weapons he then possessed." at 08/25/2009 @ 8:50pm"
Again, both of these claims have been proven!
"You'll notice I went sequentially through each post."
Let's take this time to compliment him!
"The fact that you view this editorial as "substantiated" when you dismiss the same kind of content written by Chomsky, Zinn, Herman or whoever -"
Chomsky and Herman denied the Cambodian Holocaust in 1975 and 1976 and 1977 and 1978 and 1979. Back then, they claimed Cambodia was "akin to France after liberation".
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 3:45pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 3:45pm
The fact that you rely on editorial and don't understand why this is a problem is problem No. 1. Anti, with all his biases, understands this fundamental point - which is why we converse. Conversation with you, on the other hand, strikes me as a waste of time.
Your wild conjectures about lives saved, inevitable outcomes and factoids are boring me. So, ta ta.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/26/2009 @ 8:58pm
1. The thesis of what woudl have happened to Iraq had we not invaded has been put forward by the same parties that said Iraq had WMD's, links to al Qaeda and 911 and that we woudl be greeted as liberators.
They are wrong then and they are wrong now.
2. The afghan government was hand picked in Washington, and has no connection to Iran whatsoever. Karzai is a former CIA guy and former employee of UNOCAL.
3. FrontPageMag is a right wing Islamophobic extremist web site.
5. Islamophob bile.
6. More Islamophob bile.
7. There is no proof that Saddam could or would have gotten a bomb, so it cannot have been proven.
"Chomsky and Herman denied the Cambodian Holocaust in 1975 and 1976 and 1977 and 1978 and 1979."
Wingnuts like to argue that becasue Chomsky was wrong once, he is always wrong, yet when the right wing neocons are wrong, they are patriots.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 9:37pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 01:22am
"Yes, FrontPage Mag has reported that during the Clinton years a terror attack on America planned by Saddam was foiled in 1998."
This was debunked long ago. Were there any truth to this, it would have been run on other news sources, not a right wing fringe web site.
" I'm amazed that you denied Saddam tried to kill Bush 1"
Amazed because you are ignorant. The story was complete BS.
http://tinyurl.com/lrwlnf
"The study, prepared by the C.I.A.'s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have "cooked the books" on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the "continuing Iraqi threat" to Western interests in the Persian Gulf."
It's not the liberals in the media that have downplayed Saddam's links to terror, it was the 2006 Senate Report. The right wing extremist have always hyped or fabricated Saddam's links to terror.
Saddam's secret police were thugs and militias, not terrorists.
"I thought you liberals believed revenge for trying to off Bush 1 motivated Bush 2 into ousting Saddam."
You thought wrong, or perhaps you don't think at all?
"FrontPageMag has also reported on Hezbollah and Hamas being funded by Saddam."
FrontPageMag is a right wing Islamophobic web site that argued that anyone who opposed the Iraq war as a Zarqawi supporter. Again, if there was any truth to this, it woudl have been run by real news sources. Not even Judy Miller at the NYT botheresd to touch this BS.
I am not a suported of Hamas any mroe than you are of Stalin.
"Read Saddam's Secrets, by someone who was actually involved in Iraq's government."
I like fiction, but I don't rely on it for my facts,
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 9:51pm
You seem lately to be descending into the myopia of some of the more vitriolic leftists here who ignore all facts.
I've yet to see anything that lfto has posted that isn't substantiated.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/26/2009 @ 09:56am
This coming from someone who thinks the Bible is a factual document.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 9:58pm
"Iraq had WMD's, links to al Qaeda and 911 and that we woudl be greeted as liberators."
We WERE greeted as liberators. The Kurds greeted us hysterically! Iraqi children waved at the American troops. The Shiites tore down Saddam's statue and formed a wild mob, running up to it and screaming and yelling and coming up to Saddam's statue and hitting it with their shoes and pounding on it and crying and telling nearby reporters that Saddam Hussein "is no good!"
"Were these expectations a "fraud?" No. Were Americans greeted as liberators? Yes. Christopher Hitchens, who was embedded with the invasion force recalled in an interview [HT: Neo-Neocon],
"..there are people who say that that never happened… Well I saw it happen with my own eyes and no one's going to tell me that I didn't. I saw it with--months after the invasion, people still lining the roads, especially in the south…still lining the roads and waving and the children waving which is always the sign because if the parents don't want them to, they don't. I'll never forget, you know, I will not allow it to be said that that did not happen. And in the marshes too--the marsh area of the country which was drained and burned out by poison by Saddam Hussein. Again, almost hysterical welcome and in Kurdistan in the north..""
http://tinyurl.com/moczyu
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 10:32pm
In the book "What Was Asked of Us: An Oral History of the Iraq War by the Soldiers who Fought it," soldier Dominick King says on page 161:
"On my first tour our relationship with the Iraqi people was great....We'd get out there with a boom box with a CD player, and we'd play Eminem and the little Iraqi kids would dance and we'd make fun of Saddam in Arabic languages that I don't really know, but they'd say something and I'd repeat it and then I'd say something in English and they'd repeat it....it was a real loving relationship. They absolutely loved having us there. And we would have a great time either playing soccer or trying to teach them football or something....I would say I've never felt more welcomed than when I went into Iraq the first time. It made me feel great. And it still does to this day."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 10:38pm
"Chomsky and Herman denied the Cambodian Holocaust in 1975 and 1976 and 1977 and 1978 and 1979."
Wingnuts like to argue that becasue Chomsky was wrong once, he is always wrong,"
Chomsky had more than enough evidence at the time to know what Pol Pot was doing. He just waited for the Vietnamese to overthrow him before admitting his was one of the most lethal regimes in history.
"The afghan government... has no connection to Iran whatsoever"
Why do you say things that are so self-evidently false?
"3. FrontPageMag is a right wing Islamophobic extremist web site.
5. Islamophob bile.
6. More Islamophob bile."
Number sixth never mentioned Islam. This is just the label you use to try and censor those you disagree with reflexively. Only pseudo-intellectuals use the term "islamophobia".
""I thought you liberals believed revenge for trying to off Bush 1 motivated Bush 2 into ousting Saddam."
You thought wrong, or perhaps you don't think at all? "
No I have really heard lefties make that argument.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 10:46pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 10:32pm
"We WERE greeted as liberators. "
We were greeted with IED's. No Iraqi children waved at the American troops.
Again, you're only source is an op-ed from an alcoholic who would and has said anything to justify a war that he supported.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 11:02pm
In the book "What Was Asked of Us: An Oral History of the Iraq War by the Soldiers who Fought it," soldier Dominick King says on page 161:
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 10:38pm
A book that has not been peer reviewed or fat checked and is just military propaganda.
What we DO know happened was that US soldiers murdered an entire family in Haditha, raped and murdered a teenage girl and them set fire to her body to cover up the crime.
We do know that the US laid waste to entire villages and cities like Fallujah.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 11:05pm
"A book that has not been peer reviewed or fat checked and is just military propaganda."
Have you read the book? Just because 95% of all soldiers that come back from Iraq say that the Iraqis want us there, Bush is a good man of conviction, and we're saving lives, you argue that this book full of accounts of the war by soldiers is propaganda.
"that US soldiers murdered an entire family in Haditha, raped and murdered a teenage girl and them set fire to her body to cover up the crime."
Saddam did that every day before breakfast in the morning.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 11:15pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 10:46pm
"Why do you say things that are so self-evidently false?"
I don't. My statements are not self-evidently false becasue there is no evidence to support your wingnut theory that the afghan government is controlled by Iran.
Iran has little or no involvement in Afghanistan.
"Chomsky had more than enough evidence at the time to know what Pol Pot was doing. "
Hitchens has had more than enough evidence to know that Saddam had no nuclear weapons program or connections to terrorists, or AQ, but he still insists otherwise.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 11:24pm
"Hitchens has had more than enough evidence to know that Saddam had no nuclear weapons program or connections to terrorists, or AQ, but he still insists otherwise."
The Duelfer Report found that Saddam had hidden blueprints and plans in place to construct a nuclear arsenal as soon as the sanctions were lifted. This is exactly what Hitchens predicted they would find. Saddam had no direct operational connection with AQ that we know of for sure, but it was incontrovertibly a state sponsor of jihad.
"My statements are not self-evidently false becasue there is no evidence to support your wingnut theory that the afghan government is controlled by Iran. Iran has little or no involvement in Afghanistan."
Afghanistan is already an Iranian colony. It was part of Persia. The people are Persian. Iran considered invading it in the 90s. Its government really is a puppet of Iran that constantly condemns the US. Afghanistan has as its official name today "The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan". It is named after Iran!
wiki:
"Relations between Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Iran are very strong. The two nations share the same language and culture, and both countries are part of Greater Persia. Shiites and Sunnis get along well in Afghanistan which causes no religious tensions between the two nations. Iran is a consistent donor towards Afghan reconstruction.
Afghanistan has excellent relations with the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. Afghanistan has no relations with Israel and alongside ally Iran, is a frequent non-Arab critic of Israel."
That's why Afghanistan's repressive laws are similiar to Iran's!
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 11:34pm
"The Duelfer Report found that Saddam had hidden blueprints and plans in place to construct a nuclear arsenal as soon as the sanctions were lifted."
Rubbish. there were no blueprints or plans to a nuclear arsenal. Iraq was never able top produce a nuke, so couldn't possibly have a nuclear arsenal or blueprints for anything of the kind.
Hitchens insisted that a nuclear program was still active and based it entirely on evidence from 1991.
Saddam had no connections with Jihad and was not a state sponsor of jihad. he never trusted Jihadists.
"Afghanistan is already an Iranian colony."
Afghanistan has not connection whatsoever with Iran. The people are mainly Pashtuns and Sunnis. Iran might have contributed money for reconstruction, but if that is your yardstick, that means that Iraq is an Iranian colony also.
Afghanistan's closest ally in Pakistan, not Iran.
Afghanistan's laws bear no similarity whatsoever to Iran's.
You are remarkably ignorant.
Posted by Shingo at 08/26/2009 @ 11:46pm
The people are Persian. Iran considered invading it in the 90s. Its government really is a puppet of Iran that constantly condemns the US. Afghanistan has as its official name today "The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan". It is named after Iran!
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 11:34pm
The Afghan government is run by an American pawn who worked for the CIA and US oil company UNOCAL.
Karzai was chosen by George Bush is under 24 hour armed guard by US contractors paid for by the US taxpayer. Karzai has no rule outside of Kabul, which debunks your thesis that Afghanistan is an Iranian colony.
If Afghanistan was an Iranian colony and Karzai was an Iranian puppet, then Karzai would not need protection.
Also, the Taliban were armed and funded by the US , Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Iran were enemies of the Taliban.
Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 12:02am
"Rubbish."
Was Duelfer lying?
Saddam was a radical anti-semitic jihadist terrorist mass-murderer who waged terrorism against the US and Israel before 2003. Iraq sponsored almost every terror group in the Middle East except AQ, which it met with several times and praised and worked at least with those closely affiliated with it (Zarqawi).
"Afghanistan's closest ally in Pakistan, not Iran."
Ludicrous. Pakistan is working with the Taliban to overthrow the Afghan government.
"Afghanistan's laws bear no similarity whatsoever to Iran's."
Look at how women are treated there.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 12:08am
"Also, the Taliban were armed and funded by the US , Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Iran were enemies of the Taliban."
Right. Thank you for making my point that pro-Taliban Pakistan is at odds with anti-Taliban Afghanistan, which is allied with anti-Taliban Iran.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 12:12am
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 12:08am
"Was Duelfer lying?"
No you are.
Duelfer never found any blueprints for nukes. They found blueprints for missiles.
Saddam was a radical anti-semitic mass-murderer, but he was not a jihadist and did not wage terrorism against the US and Israel before 2003.
The only terror group that Iraq sponsored was the MEK, a Marxist group which the US is also backing.
The 2006 Senate report fond that Saddam had no connection with Zarqawi.
"Pakistan is working with the Taliban to overthrow the Afghan government."
They are pretending to. The Taliban are the creation of the Pakistani ISI.
"Look at how women are treated there."
Women in Iran are treated better than most of the Arab world.
Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 12:14am
Thank you for making my point that pro-Taliban Pakistan is at odds with anti-Taliban Afghanistan, which is allied with anti-Taliban Iran.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 12:12am
You are completely confused.
Iran have always been anti Taliban. That does not mean that anti-Taliban Afghanistan is allied with anti-Taliban Iran, much less that Afghanistan is an Iranian colony.
Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 12:18am
Have you read the book? Just because 95% of all soldiers that come back from Iraq say that the Iraqis want us there, Bush is a good man of conviction, and we're saving lives, you argue that this book full of accounts of the war by soldiers is propaganda.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/26/2009 @ 11:15pm
Where did you get the number 95%? Less that half come back touting that BS.
In fact, most Iraqi soldiers voted for Obama.
"Saddam did that every day before breakfast in the morning."
Rampant hyperbole.
Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 12:22am
"Duelfer never found any blueprints for nukes. They found blueprints for missiles."
It concluded Saddam wanted to build up nuclear capacity incrementally. It explicitly mentioned intent to produce a nuclear weapon.
"Pakistan is working with the Taliban to overthrow the Afghan government."
They are pretending to."
Why are they "pretending" to if they are friends with Afghanistan as you earlier asserted stupidly?
"Women in Iran are treated better than most of the Arab world."
My point was that we've failed to liberate them completely in Afghanistan.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 12:23am
"Iran have always been anti Taliban. That does not mean that anti-Taliban Afghanistan is allied with anti-Taliban Iran, much less that Afghanistan is an Iranian colony."
You've argued it is a Pakistani colony. If so, why is Pakistan trying to overthrow its government? This conversation is becoming myopic.
"Where did you get the number 95%? Less that half come back touting that BS."
That's not an exact number, but certainly it must be at least 75% or so.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 12:28am
"It concluded Saddam wanted to build up nuclear capacity incrementally. It explicitly mentioned intent to produce a nuclear weapon."
So you were lying about blueprints for a nuclear arsenal? Good for you.
So you've toned down your argument from a nuclear arsenal to"build up nuclear capacity incrementally".
Iraq had never been able to produce a nuclear weapon.
"Why are they "pretending" to if they are friends with Afghanistan as you earlier asserted stupidly?"
It's quite simple really. Pakistan are supporting both sides (Taliban and the US), because that ensures the money keeps coming in. The Pakistan leadership learned from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that once the conflict is over, the money dries up. The way to keep the money coming in is to make sure the conflict continues.
"My point was that we've failed to liberate them completely in Afghanistan."
We never intended to. Our puppet government in Afghanistan just passed a law that allows men to starve their wives for denying them sex.
Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 12:29am
"So you've toned down your argument from a nuclear arsenal to"build up nuclear capacity incrementally". "
Its not my argument, it is Duelfer's.
"Iraq had never been able to produce a nuclear weapon."
In 1991 it was a few months away from building an atom bomb.
"We never intended to. Our puppet government in Afghanistan just passed a law that allows men to starve their wives for denying them sex."
It is surreal and Orwellian. We should force the Afghans to accept freedom like we did the Japanese no matter how much they don't want it. But Bush gave the evil sadistic cult of Islam political power in the Afghan and Iraqi constitutions out of a politically correct fear of being called Islamophobic.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 12:41am
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 12:41am
"Its not my argument, it is Duelfer's."
Exactly. Your's were lies about blueprints for nuclear arsenals.
"In 1991 it was a few months away from building an atom bomb."
Rubbish. It was not even close, let alone ready to conduct a test.
"We should force the Afghans to accept freedom like we did the Japanese no matter how much they don't want it."
What's Orwellian is the notion that you can force freedom down anyone's throat.
Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 12:46am
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009
"You've argued it is a Pakistani colony."
I never argued it was a colony, but it is closer to Pakistan than any other country.
Posted by Shingo at 08/27/2009 @ 12:49am
"What's Orwellian is the notion that you can force freedom down anyone's throat."
It sure worked well in Japan.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/27/2009 @ 6:30pm